Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Orders Declaring Petitioner a Proclaimed Person, Procedural Defect

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Arun Monga, has quashed the orders declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person. The court found that the petitioner had not been duly served and that the statutory requirements were not fulfilled.

The case pertained to a petition filed by M/s APG Marketings and another, seeking the quashing of an order summoning them through a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and another order declaring them proclaimed persons under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C.

Justice Arun Monga, in the oral judgment, stated, “Having perused the record, it is not borne out as to how the petitioners were duly served before initiating proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. Such a recourse is not sustainable in law... Further, it appears that 30 days’ time, as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not granted.”

The court acknowledged the argument put forth by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Rajesh Gupta, that the petitioner firm had ceased to exist prior to the pandemic due to heavy losses and that the petitioners were never served with warrants.

Based on the lack of evidence of proper service and non-compliance with the statutory requirements, the court held that the impugned orders could not be sustained. The judgment concluded by quashing the orders and directing that further proceedings continue in the lower court in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 03.07.2023

M/s APG Marketings and another  vs M/s Surya Polyvin Ltd. And another     

Latest Legal News